Why do Americans always invoke the 2nd amendment as the main argument to defend gun rights...

Why do Americans always invoke the 2nd amendment as the main argument to defend gun rights? Gun ownership is a natural right, it doesn't come from some shitty document. You are empowering leftist legalist horseshit when you use this argument.

Attached: 171017-waldman-2nd-amendment-tease_yyhvy6.jpg (1480x832, 298K)

Because people (liberals) don't understand the concept of independent thought.
>because I can
>"why"
So it's easier to say that some real motherfuckers said it was cool.

I’m not arguing with you, but Rights aren’t guaranteed by any natural law. A constitution protects rights. That’s how it works in societies.

High school civics or even humanities should explain that to you if your interested.

Nexttttt.

If a fascist dictator like Putin says “no guns”, then their will be no guns in the whole country, period. You hide or build one, you get disappeared into re-education camps until you die. No speedy trial, no appeal, the dictator is the law.

Who would want to live like that. I would rather die than live enslaved like that.

You fags can LARP as pretty Nazis all you want. Not gonna happen.

Bill of Rights is just a list of things that our founders defined as rights and that the government can't fuck with. They tacked it on to the constitution, which is the foundation of law in our country. By being part of the constitution, attempting to undermine the rights is the same as trying to undermine the rule of law.

The reason grabbers don't go after the second amendment is because they know they can never get it passed, as people in the USA view the Constitution and Bill of Rights as the greatest man-made document ever created. Trying to take things away from people does not work at all, as they found out with prohibition.

They will just keep trying their death by 1000 cuts strategy. It works well enough to secure power and doesn't require having to deal with the common people.

>a natural right
Those don't exist. The only "rights" you have are those guaranteed through force. You as an individual will never have the agency to contest the will of the state, AKA you will never posses the strength to impose your will on the collective, and by extension you will never posses the strength to stop the collective imposing its will upon you. The only way of contesting the will of the state is via another collective. At that point you would not be free, you would simply be subject to the will of the collective you replaced the previous one with, for the same reasons as you are subject to the current one.
If gun ownership is a "natural right" and "natural rights" mean ANYTHING then why is that Scottish man who bought one with bitcoin in jail for 5 years.
Stop acting like the world inside your head is your home and start living in the real world you fucking child.

Wrong

I know natural rights don’t exist user. I wanted to see if (((they))) know, figuring they don’t.

Thank you for saying so, though. The truth shall set us all free!

Because the UK is retarded. It's a natural right to defend your life using any means necessary.

Why are shill posts getting even worse around here?

i've never understood the anti-gun argument
because it goes down to swords,axe,knives,bow,
forks, pitchforks, shovels, pens, pencils, tools, powertools, screwdrivers, piping, lumber, etc.


it's anti-human doctrine. period.
anti-gun is codeword for ANTI-AMERICAN

Read his statement again, dumdassanons.

Goddam it you fuckers are just that stupid.

Attached: FC85FC91-39FF-47F9-9F52-46D8EC00F990.png (400x322, 150K)

This is some autism

So in summary, these natural rights have absolutely no effect on the real world in any capacity? They are absolutely meaningless and violation of them carries no consequences? Yet you still believe they exist?

The potential use of force protects rights. It is enshrined in the constitution, our countries highest legal document, to ensure that it is not a right that is easily tampered with. It exists to prevent tyranny and to remind us that some day, it may be required.

FASCIST IS CODEWORD FOR NO RIGHTS: NO RIGHTS IS UNAMERICAN

you invoke the 5th

Attached: 2B1245F6-EEAA-4D6B-BDF5-288AB766FE1B.jpg (1024x683, 115K)

The document doesn't "give" us rights. It recognizes them as natural rights, and limits government's ability to infringe upon them.

It has not been followed by the government for some time...

so i do not have a right to hold a weapon in my hands right now?
i just picked up 3 varities of weapon.
and put them back.

no harm no foul.

Agreed. user. Agreed.

I feel bad for you

Debatable, maybe true. Have some forethought. If we didn’t have all this history, what would happen........

also i agree with you.
fuck nazis and commies.
i like freedoms for all.

They exist in America. Sadly the rest of us live in faggot countries that would fuck us legally using our natural right to preserve our life.

go get shot OP, experience is the best teacher.

That’s more like it! Well, let me tell you these fascists are worse than pure communist economics and dictatorships.

They include race bigotry and religious bias. They are puritans for God’s sake!!

We must fight

Natural rights don’t exist. Your a moron. It’s fact.

I hate all these anti-gun fucks that move to America and complain. Why come to America if you hate gun culture.

I'm not going to move to Pakistan and complain about islamic culture.

>Ebin natzee punching heehee

You don't even know the difference between "your" and "you're." That's how inbred and damaged your kike brain is. Literally kys.

" some shitty document" . I expect nothing more from Argentina

Are spics genetically predisposed to loving big government or is it just a side effect of retardation?

>Are spics genetically predisposed to loving big government or is it just a side effect of retardation?
Same thing

Based leaf poster.

They exist in America because the state says they do. Which is exactly what I said in my first post. You don't have the right because it is a "natural right", you have the right because the state guarantees you that right. Pray tell how the gun control act of 94, etc fit into your fantasy? The collective said no more of this business, infringed upon your "natural rights", and... you complied. Because your natural rights don't have any effect on the real world. Which makes them meaningless. In contrast to the state, which has an effect on the real world. Which gives it meaning.
You're essentially the same as those sovereign citizen retards you realise? Acting like your bullshit intangible beliefs mean anything to anyone when they are absolutely pointless and don't let or stop anyone from doing anything.

>natural right,

but those are nonsense.

haven't you read Bentham?

/thread

SUPER BASED!!!

The state law is based on man's natural right to defend himself. The state didn't pick this particular law out of thin air. You're going off on a semantical tirade because you have no point, that's what you pseudo-intellectual faggots do.

My friend.....Come on pussycat, don’t be angry.....I like having you around all the time.

Read’em and weep, soldier.

Attached: EF60D19A-AA27-4F0F-9706-8F9BC36338E5.jpg (724x1024, 75K)

And the UK state law, etc? Were they picked out of thin air leafy boy?

>Leafy boy

LMFAO

>Gun ownership is a natural right
You're correct. But self defense IS a natural right, so as long as the government has guns the people should be allowed to have guns.
>inb4 well why not give the people bomber jets and aircraft carriers
>i'm all for it

Damn, that came from the white house?

Yikes!

No he’s wrong. Lurk Moar pleease.

I have that exact same gun

Nuclear bomb ownership is a natural right, yet drunmpftards are can't hand Iran having one. Hmm...

The Constitution is a rulebook for what God given rights the government isn't allowed to take away from the people.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Is literally the only argument I need as an American to own whatever fucking weapons I can afford. Quite frankly the fact that gun owners tolerate the amount of infringement that we have now for the sake of being civil with the pussies on the left has been more than generous of us.

Attached: q1ce7si00vwz.png (998x643, 193K)

I don't follow that faggot nation's laws. We're discussing what OP posted not your faggot country. You can't even stay on topic because you're wrong, so you need to shift the goal posts.

user, you can't even leave a baseball bat lying around during weapon sweeps. Your states views of self defense is nonexistent, and in no way is that a reflection of what another country has deemed a natural right.

>I don't follow that faggot nation's laws
>what another country has deemed

Exactly. It's the state which deems it. Nothing more.

Because the constitution was written as a guide on how to prevent tyranny.
Too bad Americans never actually used there guns to prevent it, or even acted against it.

If "laws" determine your course of action on nearly anything, you're already fucked. I would prefer all guns to remain protected, full autos included, but the legal status of firearms will never determine whether or not I own one.

So it's not a natural right because your faggot country says it isn't? The same state that allows Muslims to gang rape children? Your right to life is a natural right, and thankfully America recognized that. What your pathetic country does doesn't negate that right. It just means it's ran by faggots like you.

>The people that created the state are first and foremost the state therefore everything they did was as the state

I thought ancoms would be pro-gun? Or are you just picking whatever side would OWN THE CONSERVATARDS EPIC STYLE?

>So it's not a natural right because your faggot country says it isn't?
Yes. If the term "natural right" had any meaning whatsoever, then how could this be so? If it is the decision of the collective over whether you can or cannot do something, as evidenced by the fact that in the jurisdiction of one collective you cannot do it, but in the jurisdiction of the other you can, then rights are clearly not "natural" but artificial. The collective must create and enforce them. Hence the only rights you have are those guaranteed by the state.
How is your claim that the right to bear arms is a "natural right" any less valid than the "natural right" of universal basic income?
How is your claim that the right to bear arms is a "natural right" any less valid than the "natural right" of a "sovereign citizen" to traverse borders unimpeded?
Reality does not conform to how you want it to. Recognition is not endorsement. What you're saying is as stupid as the leftists who seem to think recognising racial IQ differences = hate rather than simple observation. You're essentially admitting that you live in a pretend world inside your head where only things you morally agree with can exist. That you will argue that things are how you think they should be, rather than how they are.

You think defending my life and free income and gibs is the same right? I didn't know potato niggers were so retarded. Put the bottle down Jimmy.

I don't save brainlet wojaks, but damn this post deserves one.

...

No, I think that the opportunity to defend your life is simply a boon granted to you by the state. Try to keep up dogfucker.
I mean, lets state the obvious. (You) need a license to own a gun legally. What good have your "natural rights" done for you there eh?

Except self preservation is an instinct not uncommon to every living creature.

Well you can try carrying around a firearm in a place where it's not legally written into being permitted then see how it turns out.

And? So is freedom of movement, hence why I used that as a comparison? So are many things which America prohibits. You think the concept of murder exists outside the state? Is the state infringing on your "natural right" to kill things by prohibiting it? What is the point of this statement?

Welcome to the foundational argument between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.

You. Are. Retarded.

I agree. Hopefully somebody shoots a traitor and takes it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Your justification (which isn't actually true btw, for example jihadi termites) says that self preservation is common to all living creatures. Are you saying that self preservation is the ONLY characteristic all living creatures share? If you can use it to justify X why not Y?
Is freedom of speech not a natural right by the same logic? It's purely human.

>Hence the only rights you have are those guaranteed by the state.
Pass highschool then think about posting again

What other reason do I need?
That’s like asking someone why they need socks and telling them “because they’re feet get cold” is not an acceptable answer.
It’s just shit logic, plain and simple.

You right though. Gotta guarantee with government mandates that birds and crickets can chirp whenever they feel like. Don't talk to me.

A right does not cease to be a right when it is infringed upon. Even the the Founding Fathers of the United States viewed the 2nd amendment as a restriction against the government and not a granting of right. That is why it is worded as "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed." They are specifically saying that the government is not the authority from where the right derives. Ability and right are not synonymous and collective action is not the same thing as subjugation. If collective asserts the protection of natural rights and liberty, then it stands to reason that the member of such a collective will have a greater ability to exercise their natural rights and have greater liberty than a member of a collective that does not assert such protection. Your argument assumes that all collectives are equal and that ability to exercise a right is the same thing as possessing a right, neither of which are true.

The sheep can claim they have a natural right but it means nothing. The lion does not give a shit about what rights the sheep think they have. Rights exist only when the means to enforce those rights exists.

I agree that the right to defend yourself doesn't come from the constitution. It comes from the willingness of gun owners to defend that right. The right to free speech is this way too, guaranteed only by those willing to fight for it. The U.K. has lost much of their freedom of speech not because they don't have a constitution but because they have lost the means to defend it.

the 2nd amendment doesn't give us gun rights. it says our natural rights can't be taken away.

>Why do Americans care about having the right to bare arms so they can defend all their rights?

>They are specifically saying that the government is not the authority from where the right derives.
And they were wrong? They were mostly Christcucks weren't they? You speak like the founding fathers are some demigods of reason.
>Your argument assumes that all collectives are equal and that ability to exercise a right is the same thing as possessing a right, neither of which are true.
No, my argument assumes that collectives will ALWAYS occur (which they will, to think otherwise is commie tier "competition just won't exist bro" thinking) and they will always impose some will or other upon the constituents.
Secondly "rights" are completely arbitrary, they only exist in legal terms, so possessing a "right" doesn't mean anything. I could claim anything is a "right" and what would make it less valid than any other? What is the condition for something to be a "right"?
My argument does not assume all collectives are equal. It is that the collective under which jurisdiction you belong (the biggest bully on the playground so to speak) dictates what is and isn't allowed. You can say "a member of such a collective will have a greater ability to exercise" these rights, but members of such a collective will NEVER have the agency to dictate the direction of the collective itself, hence why for example, the Republican party is made up of multiple factions rather than one hivemind. Thus the member of the collective is still subservient to that collective, even if it benefits him (I'm not arguing against the state here). The concept of "natural rights" is just fundamentally retarded. It's an appeal to some quasi-deity, some mystical agent of order. You will always be allowed to do what other people allow you to do. Whatever that may be. Calling some of that shit "rights" is meaningless because it doesn't make them any different than any of the others in any way.

Because a country needs to set certain rights so there is a clear line for the country and chaos does not result. The document is just acknowledging the right as a HUMAN RIGHT.

Why is this a question?

I find strange how Americans have such respect for their constitution. Here everyone hates the damn thing because it was made by corrupt politicians and it's full of shit. Maybe the American constitution is actually good. We also had a hand full of constitutions so we never really got attached to one.

Attached: opposites-attract-comic0.png (1000x1000, 86K)